Butt Construction Company, Inc., B-284270, March 20, 2000

B-284270 Mar 20, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher-priced proposal for award where it determined that strength of offeror's experience was significant enough to offset difference in price. 2. Agency's scoring of protester's proposal under similar projects subfactor in solicitation for design and construction work was reasonable where protester did not demonstrate experience with projects with comparable security requirements. Butt argues that its proposal should have been selected because it represents the best value to the government. Which was issued on September 9. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and the following factors. Price was equal in weight to the other evaluation factors combined. All five were included in the competitive range. View Decision Matter of: Butt Construction Company, Inc. File: B-284270 Date: March 20, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Butt Construction Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Monarch Construction Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA27-99-R-0037, issued by the Army Corps of Engineers for design and construction of an addition to, and renovation of, the Avionics Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Butt argues that its proposal should have been selected because it represents the best value to the government. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was issued on September 9, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. RFP Sec. 00110, at 4. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of price and the following factors, listed in order of importance: qualifications and experience, design and engineering, and project management. RFP Sec. 00130, at 2-3. Price was equal in weight to the other evaluation factors combined. RFP Sec. 00130, at 1. The RFP provided for consideration of the following subfactors under the qualifications and experience factor: prime contractor experience, design firm experience, individual personnel experience, and mechanical and electrical subcontractor experience. /1/ In addition, the RFP provided for consideration of the following elements under the prime contractor experience subfactor: similar projects, previous experience with mechanical and electrical subcontractors, original/final dates and costs, and points of contact (references). RFP Sec. 00130, at 2. Five offerors submitted proposals prior to the October 20 closing date. All five were included in the competitive range, and the agency conducted discussions with and requested revised proposals from all. Final technical scores and prices were as follows: Offeror Technical Score Total Price Quals./Exp. Des./Eng. Proj. Man. Overall Total points 8000 3600 2000 13600 Butt 4500 2405 1100 8005 $11,073,000 Monarch 5380 2120 1295 8795 $11,312,000 Offeror A 5090 2060 1125 8275 $11,496,857 Offeror B 4090 1825 1025 6940 $12,115,000 Offeror C 5380 2475 1235 9090 $12,768,889 Evaluation Scoring Sheets, Revised Oct. 22, 1999; Agency Report at 12. /2/ The technical evaluation panel determined that Monarch's combination of technical merit and price represented the best value to the government. In this regard, the evaluators concluded that Offeror C's top-rated technical proposal "did not offer enough advantages" over Monarch's second-ranked one to justify paying a price premium of approximately $1.5 million, but that the strengths of Monarch's proposal were "significant enough to offset the difference of $239,000.00 in price" over Butt's lowest-priced one. Memorandum from the Evaluation Board to the Contracting Officer, Evaluation Results, at 15 (Nov. 29, 1999). In comparing Monarch's proposal with Butt's, the evaluators noted that Monarch had received a far better score than Butt under the most important evaluation criterion (qualifications and experience) because of recent projects of similar scope, size and complexity; they also noted that Monarch had demonstrated a significant amount of prior work experience with its proposed design team and subcontractors. Id. The evaluation panel concluded that "[b]ased on the strength of their experience, the Design Team experience and experience in working with the Mechanical and Electrical Subcontractor, Monarch represented the best value to the Government when compared to Butt Construction Company." Id. Accordingly, the evaluation panel recommended Monarch for award. The source selection authority concurred, and on December 2, the Corps awarded a contract to Monarch. Butt challenges the agency's price/technical tradeoff, arguing that the Corps has not adequately justified its selection of a higher-priced offeror.